Harvey v Henzell

[2015] QDC 132

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harvey v Henzell & Ors [2015] QDC 132

PARTIES:

BARRY HARVEY

(respondent/plaintiff)

v

SANDRA HENZELL

(first applicant/defendant)

AND

TANYA HENZELL

(second applicant/defendant)

AND

WILLIAM HENZELL

(third applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1237/15

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 May 2015 ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2015

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

1.          The claim and statement of claim be struck out.

2.          The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the notice of intention to defend, the defence and this application fixed in the sum $2,000.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE – DAMAGES DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS – where the respondent/plaintiff alleges the first, second and third applicant/defendant made defamatory statements about the respondent/plaintiff to a family report writer during proceedings in the Family Court – where the respondent/plaintiff alleges that recipients of the report formed a negative view of the respondent/plaintiff – whether the first, second and third applicant/defendant’s statements to the family report writer were substantially true and/or were made under absolute privilege

PRACTICE – ABUSE OF PROCESS – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – STRIKING OUT – whether the respondent/plaintiff’s pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action – whether the respondent/plaintiff has any real prospects of success – whether the first, second and third applicant/defendant’s application to strike out the respondent/plaintiff’s claim and statement of claim for abuse of process should be allowed – whether the first, second and third defendant are entitled summary judgment against the plaintiff

Legislation

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 27, sch 5

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 171, 293

COUNSEL:

Mr B Harvey (self-represented) for the respondent/plaintiff

Ms P Sweetapple for the first, second and third applicant/defendant

SOLICITORS:

The respondent/plaintiff was not represented by solicitors

The first, second and third respondent/defendant were not represented by solicitors

1. HIS HONOUR:   Mr Harvey has sued William Henzell, Sandra Henzell and Tanya Henzell for compensation for defamatory comments made to a family report writer in a family report which he alleges has also been shown and sent to others including, but probably not limited to, Judy Stewart, Asha Egan, Judge Lapthorn and others from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Dr Ben McDarmont and the Family Court.

1. His statement of claim alleges the defendants made defamatory statements about him in a formal family report about his personality, financial skills, relationships’ control and domestic violence, amongst other false and defamatory statements.  His statement of claim, in addition, alleges these were forwarded to various bodies and individuals including, but probably not limited to, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and Family Court, Judith Stewart and Asha Egan.

1. Finally, he alleged the sending of these caused the recipients to form negative opinions about him that have had a negative impact on his legal standing in the courts and compromised the safety and best interest of his son CH as they led to dismissal and disregard of the firearms danger he has been proven to be in…